The later Centurions were pretty good for an all steel tank though. Though from the picture above, even without Stillbrew, it's pretty thick along the direct front of the turret; the sides not so much.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to 200mm at whatever inclination the slope is (which would put it in the high 200s).

Which isn't enough against the 115mm APFSDS as we all know (BM-4 is around 270mm IIRC), but it's still pretty good for a "big tank".

Turret 195mm @ 60d = 390mm

Hull 120mm @ 72d = 388mm

DKTanker, if it is for Chieftain (as I guess), this data are obsolote. Glacis is circa 85 mm, turret front is circa 140-150 mm. A little more than equivalent for 120 mm at 60 degrees like FV 4201 was designed for.

Are the Max H figures going to be for WoT? If so, I guess we can wait till then.

The figure would be interesting, as it can tell us what Stillbrew was really made for. Some books say 125mm, whilst people online tend to go with 115mm. Granted, the latter can be in books too, but I only have the cheap Osprey ones.

Are the Max H figures going to be for WoT? If so, I guess we can wait till then.

The figure would be interesting, as it can tell us what Stillbrew was really made for. Some books say 125mm, whilst people online tend to go with 115mm. Granted, the latter can be in books too, but I only have the cheap Osprey ones.

Soldat und Technik 1/90 in the column "Unsere Leser wollen wissen" (our readers want to know) states that Stillbrew was intended for protection against 125mm.

Are the Max H figures going to be for WoT? If so, I guess we can wait till then.

The figure would be interesting, as it can tell us what Stillbrew was really made for. Some books say 125mm, whilst people online tend to go with 115mm. Granted, the latter can be in books too, but I only have the cheap Osprey ones.

Soldat und Technik 1/90 in the column "Unsere Leser wollen wissen" (our readers want to know) states that Stillbrew was intended for protection against 125mm.

Think I'd agree with that; while it was a reaction to 115mm the vehicles in Germany were still expected to face the latest Soviet tanks.

Did later Chieftains have thicker armor? Maybe that would explain why higher thickness figures are so often cited.

No. There was a story they did, but I am pretty sure it refer to Stillbrew package and not any basic armor upgrade.

It must be noted that the FV4201 ChieftainMk. 10(the one which has the Stillbrew Crew Protection Package) was an upgraded Mk. 9, which was itself an incremental upgrade of previous Chieftain marks as the Mk. 5/4, Mk. 6/4, Mk. 7/4 and Mk. 8/4 respectively.

And the up-marked Mk. 6/4 is a modified Mk. 6, the final mark of the Mk. 2 after the Exercice Totem Pole upgrading programme !

All this to say that the ChieftainMk. 10(with the Stillbrew armor) previously measured by Max H could be an old Mk. 2 and therefore, share the same armor thickness.

Last interesting find, from various UK docs from very early 1960s. Chieftain was already overgrown, to reduce weight it was considered to reduce armour protection of Mk 2. Firstly, from immunity vs 100 mm AP at circa 640 meters (700 yards) to 800 meters. Secondly, to reduce immunity zone from 60 degrees (30 degrees from left and right of turret axis) to 45 degrees (like, it is said, US did with M60A1 turret). Thirdly, to take some mm from glacis, as tank was supposed to fight hull down, mostly.

Like said, those are only considerations, but looks serious. Did not found paper confirmation, though.

Btw.WOT`s For The Record site digged up two interesting pics showing, the most probably, simplified mock-up of "Contentious" heavy-gun tank.

Note remains of armoured front fuel tank, the main feature of design, that was supposed to give this thing immunity to almost every threat of that time.

According to Bojan BM-9 would stand a decent chance as the numbers on Vasiliy's grate sight are for 80% of shots - the 50% limit was much closer to LoS as you'd expect from L-O

Did later Chieftains have thicker armor? Maybe that would explain why higher thickness figures are so often cited.

No. There was a story they did, but I am pretty sure it refer to Stillbrew package and not any basic armor upgrade.

It must be noted that the FV4201 ChieftainMk. 10(the one which has the Stillbrew Crew Protection Package) was an upgraded Mk. 9, which was itself an incremental upgrade of previous Chieftain marks as the Mk. 5/4, Mk. 6/4, Mk. 7/4 and Mk. 8/4 respectively.

And the up-marked Mk. 6/4 is a modified Mk. 6, the final mark of the Mk. 2 after the Exercice Totem Pole upgrading programme !

All this to say that the ChieftainMk. 10(with the Stillbrew armor) previously measured by Max H could be an old Mk. 2 and therefore, share the same armor thickness.

According to Rob Griffin's book, the vehicle with that registration started out as a Mk2 (it's the vehicle run during bovington's summer tank displays). Which would beg the question, if Mk2's were so significantly underarmoured, why upgrade them just like the later marks?

According to Bojan BM-9 would stand a decent chance as the numbers on Vasiliy's grate sight are for 80% of shots - the 50% limit was much closer to LoS as you'd expect from L-O

Did later Chieftains have thicker armor? Maybe that would explain why higher thickness figures are so often cited.

No. There was a story they did, but I am pretty sure it refer to Stillbrew package and not any basic armor upgrade.

It must be noted that the FV4201 ChieftainMk. 10(the one which has the Stillbrew Crew Protection Package) was an upgraded Mk. 9, which was itself an incremental upgrade of previous Chieftain marks as the Mk. 5/4, Mk. 6/4, Mk. 7/4 and Mk. 8/4 respectively.

And the up-marked Mk. 6/4 is a modified Mk. 6, the final mark of the Mk. 2 after the Exercice Totem Pole upgrading programme !

All this to say that the ChieftainMk. 10(with the Stillbrew armor) previously measured by Max H could be an old Mk. 2 and therefore, share the same armor thickness.

According to Rob Griffin's book, the vehicle with that registration started out as a Mk2 (it's the vehicle run during bovington's summer tank displays). Which would beg the question, if Mk2's were so significantly underarmoured, why upgrade them just like the later marks?

We should seriously measure the glacis of another Chieftain tank to be sure that the alleged 120mm thickness is a myth or indeed real.